J. - Ronald Richards los angeles, ca 90012 stuart dumas, privately retained ronald n. richards, privately

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of J. - Ronald Richards los angeles, ca 90012 stuart dumas, privately retained ronald n. richards,...

  • SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    DEPARTl\1ENT 128 HON. DENNIS J. LANDIN, JUDGE

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) )

    PLAINTIFF, ) )

    VS. ) NO. BA366849 )

    01 JOSE TAJEDA, ) 02 GERARDO ALFARO, ) 03 RODRIGO CASTELLON, )

    ) DEFENDANTS. )

    REPORTER I S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

    WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2010

    PAGE 1 THROUGH 41, INCLUSIVE

    A P PEA RAN C E S:

    FOR THE PEOPLE:

    FOR THE DEFENDANT (01) TAJEDA

    FOR THE DEFENDANT (02) ALFARO

    FOR THE DEFENDANT (03) CASTELLON

    STEVE COOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY BY: TRACY SIMS, DEPUTY 210 WEST TElVIPLE STREET 18TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

    STUART DUMAS, PRIVATELY RETAINED

    RONALD N. RICHARDS, PRIVATELY RETAINED

    BRADLEY S. SANDLER, PRIVATELY RETAINED

    MARTHA El\'1ERICH, CSR. NO. 6864 OFFICIAL REPORTER

  • 1 CASE NUMBER:

    2 CASE NAME:

    3

    4

    BA366849

    PEOPLE VS. JOSE TAJEDA (01),

    GERARDO ALFARO (02),

    5 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

    RODRIGO CASTELLON (03)

    WEDNESDAY, AUGUST II, 2010

    HON. DENNIS J. LANDIN, JUDGE

    MARTHA EMERICH, CSR NO. 6864

    A.M. SESSION

    6 DEPARTMENT 128

    7 REPORTER:

    8 TIME:

    9 APPEARANCES:

    10 DEFENDANT TAJEDA, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY

    11 STUART DUMAS, PRIVATELY RETAINED i DEFENDANT

    12 ALFARO, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY RONALD N.

    13 RICHARDS, PRIVATELY RETAINED i DEFENDANT

    14 CASTELLON, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY BRADLEY S.

    15 SANDLER, PRIVATELY RETAINED i TRACY SIMS,

    16 DEPUI'Y DISTRICT ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING THE

    17 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

    18 --000--

    19

    (A CERTIFIED SPANISH LANGUAGE

    INTERPRETER, INTERPRETING ENGLISH

    FOR DEFENDANT CASTELLON AND

    DEFENDANT ALFARO.)

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25 THE COURT: ITEMS 2, 9, 10, AS WELL AS 11 AND 12,

    26 PEOPLE VERSUS JOSE TAJEDA, GERARDO ALFARO AND RODRIGO

    27 CASTELLON.

    28 MR. RICHARDS: RONALD RICHARDS AND PATRICK SANTOS

    1

  • 2

    1 FOR THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD RICHARDS AND ASSOCIATES

    2 REPRESENTING MR. ALFARO.

    3 MR. SANDLER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

    4 BRAD SANDLER ON BEHALF OF MR. CASTELIDN.

    5 HE IS BEFORE THE COURT.

    6 MR. DUMAS: STEWART DUMAS, APPEARING FOR SAMMY

    7 WEISS ON BEHALF OF MR. TAJEDA, WHO IS PRESENT IN COURT IN

    8 CUSTODY.

    9 MR. SIMS: DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TRACY SIMS FOR

    10 THE PEOPLE.

    11 THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

    12 ON CALENDAR TODAY IS A MOTION TO SET ASIDE

    13 THE INFORMATION, AS WELL AS A MOTION TO DISCIDSE THE

    14 INFORMANT.

    15 LET'S START WITH THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE

    16 THE INFORMATION.

    17 COUNSEL FOR MR. CASTELIDN, DID YOU WANT TO

    18 BE HEARD?

    19 MR. SANDLER: WELL, YOUR HONOR, JUST IN AN

    20 ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE A WAIVER FROM

    21 THE DEFENDANTS THAT THEY ARE BOTH BEING SIMULTANEOUSLY

    22 ASSISTED BY THE SAME SPANISH INTERPRETER.

    23 SO ON BEHALF OF MR. CASTELIDN,

    24 MR. CASTELIDN, YOU ARE SHARING AN INTERPRETER THIS MORNING

    25 WITH MR. ALFARO. DO YOU AGREE TO THAT?

    26 DEFENDANT CASTELIDN: YES.

    27 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

    28 MR. ALFARO, DO YOU AGREE TO SHARE AN

  • 3

    1 INTERPRETER WITH MR. CASTELIDN?

    2 DEFENDANT ALFARO: YES.

    3 MR. SANDLER: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

    4 MAY I PROCEED?

    5 THE COURT: YOU MAY.

    6 MR. SANDLER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

    7 YOUR HONOR, I REPRESENT MR. CASTELIDN IN

    8 THIS MATTER. I FILED A MOTION. I THINK IT'S REAL CLEAR

    9 FACIUALLY WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO AT THE PRELIM. I DON'T

    10 KNOW OF ANY DISCREPANCY WITH OUR REPRESENTATION OF WHAT

    11 THOSE FACTS WERE AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING EXISTS BY THE

    12 PEOPLE, BUT - - BUT MY READING OF THE TESTIMONY AND WHAT I

    13 REMEMBER FROM THE HEARING WAS THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO

    14 EVIDENCE ATTRIBUTED TO MR. CASTELIDN OTHER THAN HE GOT

    15 INTO A VEHICLE WITH ONE OF THE TWO UNDERCOVERS THAT WAS

    16 WORKING ON THIS CASE AND WENT FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER

    17 LOCATION.

    18 THERE WAS NO DRUGS ON HIS PERSON OR ON THE

    19 INFORMANT IN THAT DRIVE. THERE WAS NO DRUGS EVER

    20 RECOVERED FROM MY CLIENT. NONE OF THE PARAPHERNALIA OR

    21 ITEMS SEIZED HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND ON MY CLIENT'S PERSON,

    22 IN HIS VEHICLE, IN HIS COMMAND. THERE'S NO STATEMENTS

    23 ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. HE'S SUPPOSEDLY AT ONE LOCATION.

    24 THERE'S NO STATEMENTS FROM A CONVERSATION

    25 HE TOOK PART IN. NO EVIDENCE THAT HE PLANNED ANY CRIME.

    26 NO EVIDENCE THAT HE BROUGHT THE MONEY, THAT HE BROUGHT THE

    27 DRUGS. ALL WE HAVE IS HIM GETTING IN A CAR AND GOING TO

    28 ANOTHER LOCATION.

  • 4

    1 HE DID OFFER ONE EXPLANATION TO OFFICERS

    2 WHEN" THEY INTERVIEWED HIM THAT DAY OF WHAT HE WAS DOING AT

    3 THE SECOND LOCATION AND THAT I S THAT HE WAS HAVING HIS CAR

    4 JUMPED OR ASSISTING SOMEONE WHO WAS JUMPING THEIR CAR.

    5 AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT NOT ONLY WITH THE CARS AND THE WAY

    6 THEY WERE SITUATED, A PICTURE THAT WAS ADMITTED INTO

    7 EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWED JUMPER CABLES HANGING FROM THE

    8 GRILLE OF THE TOYOTA TUNDRA IN THIS MATTER. THE TOYOTA

    9 TUNDRA DID NOT BELONG TO MY CLIENT. THAT IS WHERE DRUGS

    10 WERE FOUND.

    11 SUPPOSEDLY MY CLIENT WALKED ONTO A DRIVEWAY

    12 AND STOOD WITH ONE OF THE INFORMANTS AND WITH ONE OF THE

    13 OTHER DEFENDANTS. THE INFORMANT REPORTS THAT HE WAS

    14 LOOKING AT THE DRUGS, MEANING THE INFORMANT WAS LOOKING AT

    15 THE DRUGS THAT WERE SITUATED IN THE CAR.

    16 THERE I S NO COMMENTS BY MY CLIENT. THERE I S

    17 NO ACTIONS BY MY CLIENT. THERE I S NO CONDUCT ATTRIBUTED TO

    18 HIM THAT SAYS HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THESE DRUGS, THAT HE

    19 HAD ANY'IHING TO DO WITH THESE DRUGS. AND WE CAN I T JUST

    20 BASE A HOLDING TO ANSWER ON AN ASSUMPTION OR A

    21 PRESUMPTION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HIS BEHAVIOR THAT

    22 LINKS HIM TO TRANSPORTING DRUGS OR BEING IN POSSESSION OF

    23 ANY DRUGS FOR SALE. IT I S VERY CLEAR.

    24 THE EVIDENCE IS VERY DIFFERENT AS TO THE

    25 OTHER DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CONDUCT, BUT AS TO

    26 MR. CASTELLON, IT I S VERY CLEAR. HE GOT INTO A CAR WITH AN

    27 INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT IS THE REASON WE MADE A REQUEST FOR

    28 THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT BECAUSE AT THE PRELIMINARY

  • 5

    1 HEARING WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT TO QUESTION

    2 REGARDING THOSE ISSUES i WAS THERE A DISCUSSION THAT MY

    3 CLIENT PARTICIPATED IN IN THE VEHICLE, ON THE DRIVEWAY.

    4 WE DON'T HAVE THAT BENEFIT, AND NONE OF

    5 THAT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. SO I THINK BASED ON THE

    6 EVIDENCE THAT THIS COURT HAS BEFORE IT, THE CHARGES AS TO

    7 MR. CASTELLON SHOULD BE SET ASIDE, YOUR HONOR.

    8 MR. RICHARDS: DO YOU WANT ME TO ARGUE MINE? WE

    9 HAVE DIFFERENT ISSUES.

    10 THE COURT: YOURS IS NOT A SUFFICIENCY OF THE

    11 EVIDENCE.

    12 MR. RICHARDS: ON COUNT 2 IT IS.

    13 THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

    14 MR. RICHARDS: DO YOU WANT ME TO ARGUE BOTH FACETS

    15 OF MY 995 OR JUST THE SUFFICIENCY FIRST?

    16 THE COURT: JUST THE SUFFICIENCY FIRST.

    17 MR. RICHARDS: ON COUNT 2, YOUR HONOR, WE FILED A

    18 SUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT BECAUSE COUNT 2 WAS AN OFFERING FOR

    19 SALE, AND THERE WAS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT MR. ALFARO OFFERED

    20 THESE DRUGS TO ANYBODY. WE MADE A PRO FORMA MOTION ON

    21 COUNT 1 FOR THE POSSESSION, BUT THERE ARE 'TWO SEPARATE

    22 ELEMENTS, SEPARATE CRIMES.

    23 AND IN THIS CASE, THERE'S NO DISPUTE THAT

    24 IN THE RECORD THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE - - AT THE LOWER

    25 COURT MR. ALFARO DIDN'T OFFER ANY NARCOTICS TO ANYBODY.

    26 THAT'S A SEPARATE OFFENSE WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO

    27 MAKE A DEAL.

    28 THE EVIDENCE WAS UNDISPUTED. I DON'T THINK

  • 6

    1 THE PEOPLE DISPUTE THAT SOJ.VIEONE NAMED OSCAR WAS THE PERSON

    2 THAT WAS ORGANIZING AND OFFERING THE NARCOTICS FOR SALE.

    3 AND SO THE DEFENDANT HAS TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT FOR

    4 THE OFFENSE, AND THERE WAS - - IT WAS - - THERE'S NOT MUCH I

    5 CAN ARGUE BECAUSE NO EVIDEf:\fCE WAS ELICITED RELATED TO THAT

    6 SPECIFIC COUNT.

    7 WE DID PROVIDE THE COURT ON PAGE 10 OF OUR

    8 BRIEF THAT -- WE PROVIDED THE JURY INS'!RUCTION 12.02 WHICH

    9 REQUIRES THE PERSON TO BE GIVING THE NARCOTICS AWAY OR

    10 SELLING IT, AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN THIS CASE

    11 HE WAS ALSO CHARGED WITH A POSSESSION COUNT.

    12 SO POSSESSION IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN

    13 Ef:\fGAGING IN THE ACT OF SALES, AND HE STILL - - WOULD STILL

    14 FACTUALLY, NOTWITHSTANDING WE'RE GOING TO GET TO OUR LEGAL

    15 ISSUES ON THE DEf:\fIAL OF THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHI', BUT

    16 FACTUALLY, THERE WAS JUST NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THAT COUNT,

    17 BUT HE STILL HAS FACTS WHICH SUPPORTED THE POSSESSION ,

    18 COUNT, BUT THEY CAN'T BE IGNORED SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE

    19 '!RIED TOGETHER -- OR FILED TOGETHER.

    20 THE COURT: ALL RIGHI'. T